Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

That on dated 19/10/94 or before you being manufacturer and marketing company of Cerelac, Lactogen violated the provisions of Sec. 3,6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c ), of The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of production supply and Distribution) Act 1992 by printing the notice "BREAST MILK IS BEST FOR YOUR BABY" instead of "MOTHER'S MILK IS BEST FOR YOUR BABY" and by not printing the important notice in Hindi Devnagari Script and also by not printing the information/warning that "Infant Milk Substitute or Infant food is not the sole source of nourishment of an infant on the containers of Lactogen and also printed "BREAST MILK"

(i) The Union of India, Respondent No.1, in its counter affidavit has admitted that the inconsistencies present between the two Acts have been removed by way of the 1997 amendment brought into the PFA Rules. This is indicative of the fact the two legislations under consideration were non-aligned till 1997 and discrepancies were present in them.

(j) The Union of India has itself admitted that there is no difference between breast milk and mother's milk as both the phrases are used interchangeably. Therefore, the petitioner company is not at fault as it followed the labelling under Rules 37B of the PFA Rules which provided for printing the following statement in bold letters "BREAST MILK IS BEST FOR YOUR BABY".

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the intervener ACASH has made the following submission:-

(a) The PFA Act along with the rules made therein is a legislation actually directed towards prevention of adulteration of food articles whereas the IMS Act is a special legislation enacted for the purpose of encouraging breast feeding in mothers and dealing with infant substitutes and food products. The learned Senior Counsel, in this behalf, has drawn our attention towards the statement of reasons and objects behind the enactment of the IMS Act. The said statement of reasons reveal that the IMS Act was brought into force to give effect to the principles laid down in the International Code for marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 1981 for the proper nutrition and health for the world's children. The Government of India recognized this Code and adopted the "Indian National Code for Protection and Promotion of Breast-

Feeding" (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in December, 1983. The Code envisaged that there shall be no advertising or other form of sales promotion of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats. The Code, in accordance with this general principle enjoined, the health authorities to encourage and protect breast feeding and also prescribed several measures to control the marketing and promotion of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles, teats and infant foods. Therefore, the IMS Act was specifically aimed towards boosting breast feeding through mothers and to ensure that in the marketing of infant milk substitutes no impression is given that feeding of these products is equivalent to, or better than, breast feeding. Therefore, once the IMS Act and IMS Rules had come into force, it became the special statute dealing with infant substitutes and being a later special statute would prevail over the PFA Act which was an earlier general statute. The learned Senior Counsel, in this regard, has cited the decisions of Supreme Court in Ashok Marketing vs. Punjab National Bank, (1990) 4 SCC 406 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shiv Shanker (1971) 1 SCC 442.